Law in Quebec

Roll up to win

The popular promotion Roll Up to Win could be costly for Tim Hortons after Quebec Superior Court certified a class action for Quebecers who received an email declaring that they won a boat only to be later informed that it wasn’t the case.

The class, spearheaded by Montreal class action law firm LPC Avocats, is seeking the delivery a Tracker Targa 2024 boat and its trailer under sections 41, 42 and 272 (a) of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (CPA) or its worth estimated to be about $64,000. The class is also claiming damages due to the “excitement, stress and disappointment” suffered, pursuant to s. 272 of the CPA and s. 1812 of the Civil Code of Quebec, and $10,000 in punitive damages.

Tim Hortons disputes the claim, asserting there is no consumer contract between the company and the plaintiff. It also argued that if ever there was a consumer contract, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act invoked by the plaintiff do not apply nor are they violated, and in any event, the plaintiff never won the boat and trailer based on the contest rules. The email sent to the plaintiff was “merely a summary email sent after the end of the contest,” according to Tim Hortons.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Donald Bisson dismissed Tim Hortons’ contentions. He noted that a participant must purchase a specific product in order to obtain a Roll Up to Win rim.

“It is therefore wrong to say that the participant is taking part in a free contest without doing anything: he must buy something,” said Justice Bisson. “In so doing, there is a sale, and the question of the contest then becomes incidental to the sale and is governed by the conditions attached to the sale.”

Justice Bisson, heeding guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Richard v. Time Inc., 2012 SCC 8, held that Tim Hortons cannot rely on a defence of no prejudice or the presence of an error that was rectified hours later by email.

“Whether or not there is an error is irrelevant because Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada do not provide an ‘out’ for the business to demonstrate an error under sections 41 and 42,” said Justice Bisson. “The same is true for the defence of force majeure. The difference between excusable and inexcusable error does not apply either.”

By refusing to give boats to people who were told they had won them, and “not even offering them anything else,” it could destroy the public’s trust in mobile app contests and justifies the claim for requested punitive damages, added Justice Bisson.

---

Mentor silicone breast implants class action

A class action seeking compensation for women who underwent implant surgery with Mentor breast implants “without being provided full and adequate disclosure” of the risks associated has been certified by the B.C. Supreme Court.

Class members includes all persons who were implanted with Mentor Silicone Breast Implants in Canada between October 19, 2006 to October 21, 2024. The suit alleges that the implants may cause specific connective tissue disorders as well as breast implant illness, including the risk of anaplastic large cell lymphoma.

The Court certified 12 common issues that should be decided, including whether the Mentor silicone breast implants can cause specific connective tissue disorders and/or breast implant illness. If so, did the Defendants breached their duty to class members in its post-market surveillance and/or monitoring of the Mentor silicone breast implants with respect to those conditions, and, by extension, whether the Defendants’ acts or omissions were negligent or in breach of Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and/or the federal Competition Act.

None of the claims against the defendants have been proven.

If a person falls within the class definition approved by the Court, then they are automatically included in the Class and do not have to do anything to participate.

But if a person does not want to be part of the National Class Action, they must complete an opt out form by August 11, 2025, which can be found here.

---

Thrifty car rental company faces class action

A class action lawsuit against Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Canada and Hertz Canada Limited was certified recently by Quebec Superior Court.

The class action alleges that the defendants did not indicate nor confirm the foreign currency to be charged on some of their Canadian mobile apps or .ca websites, leading to customers being charged a higher price than that advertised at the initial review stage of the transaction. The class also alleges that Thrifty and Hertz made false and misleading representations and are liable to pay punitive damages in addition to reimbursing the overage charged to customers, including any foreign currency conversion charges or commissions that may have been charged by the customer’s credit card or other payment card companies.

The car rental companies maintain that there was no legal relationship with the defendant Hertz Canada Limited, and that there is no arguable case for reservations made for rentals in countries other than the United States. They also affirm that the allegations of misrepresentation regarding the rental price do not give rise to a cause of action under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act (CPA), the Civil Code or the Competition Act, and that there is no legal basis for claiming punitive damages.

In Benjamin c. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Canada, 2025 QCCS 2047, Quebec Superior Court Justice Catherine Piché held that it is not frivolous to argue that the defendants violated section 54.4(h) Consumer Protection Act when they did not mention on their Canadian website that the total price of a car rental would not be in Canadian dollars, but in U.S. dollars.

Justice Piché also noted that is prohibited under the CPA for a business or manufacturer to charge for more for a good or service than is advertised, and to make a false or misleading representation.

---

Ottawa faces class action over workers’ rights

A class against the Attorney General of Canada over workers’ rights was certified by Quebec Superior Court.

The Association for the Rights of Household and Farm Workers (DTMF) argues that “employer-tying measures” imposed on temporary foreign workers breach sections 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter. This includes imposing employer-specific work permits or “closed” work permits.

“The employer-tied workers’ inability to change employers creates a striking power imbalance in favour of the employer, making migrant workers uniquely vulnerable to several forms of exploitation, abuse, and human and labour rights violations, while simultaneously limiting their capacity to assert their rights and to seek redress for their breach,” argued lawyers for Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP in its application.

The federal government submits that there are no allegations of commonality amongst the work experiences of all temporary foreign workers.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Silvana Conte disagreed.

“There is no requirement that each member of a group be in an identical or even a similar position in relation to the defendant or to the injury suffered only that they be in a sufficiently similar situation such that a common question for which the class action seeks answers can be identified,” held Justice Conte in Association for the Rights of Household and Farm Workers c. Attorney General of Canada, 2024 QCCS 3350. “A declaration that the employer-tying measures are unconstitutional and/or a violation of the Charter would resolve the issue for all members of the Class.”

Here are the conditions that people must meet to be part of the class, according to Davies:

A person is automatically a member of this class action IF they worked in Canada after April 17, 1982 without having been a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada at the time, AND IF they meet at least one (1) of the following conditions:

• They were issued a work permit which included the condition of working for a specific employer (or group of employers) or at a specific employer’s workplace (or group of workplaces):

  • They meet this condition if they were hired through the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP), the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP) or the Non-Immigrant Employment Authorization Program (NIEAP).
    
    
  • They also meet this condition if they were hired through the International Mobility Program (IMP) or another immigration stream or program and their work permit included the condition of working for a specific employer (or group of employers) or at a specific employer’s workplace (or group of workplaces).

OR

• They were authorized to work in Canada without a work permit because they were employed by a foreign entity on a short-term basis, or because they were employed in a personal capacity by an individual who was not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. This category:

  • includes domestic workers, personal assistants or caregivers (nannies or au pair) who entered Canada along with their employers, or to join their employers for a short-term in Canada;

  • includes accredited domestic workers employed in a personal capacity by certain foreign representatives, such as ambassadors, high commissioners, heads of international organizations, special representatives, or individuals occupying similar positions;

  • does not include individuals who were employed by a foreign State or other foreign entity to work at an embassy, a high commission, a consulate, a permanent delegation to a United Nations agency, or a special representative office;

  • does not include individuals employed by the United Nations, its agencies or an international organization of which Canada is a member.

Individuals who meet these criteria are automatically included in the class action, notes Davies. A person can opt out of the class action but must do so by August 27, 2025.